Atheists: What would be evidence of God’s existence?

[Kfox]

I guess if it does not matter to you if God actually exists or not, and this is all hypothetical, there is nothing more to discuss, but if you care if God exists or not then you would have to look at the actual evidence that indicates that God exists, because we all know there is no God speaking from the sky.

It is a mistake to assume that because I am not a theist I wouldn't care if God existed. It is also a mistake to assume that because I am not theist I haven't looked at the evidence. Believe it or not; I used to be theist and the reason I no longer am is because I did look at the evidence.

I could go into all the reasons why a God speaking from the sky would not accomplish anything, except to garner the belief of a numbered few atheists, but I see no point in doing any logical reasoning if you are dead set that a God speaking from the sky is the only evidence you would ever accept.

I never said God speaking from the clouds was the only evidence I would accept. You asked a question; I gave you an answer. I never said I was dead set on anything, or that there weren't other things that I would find convincing, I just said I'm not gonna find some guy I don't know who hasn't earned any credibility from me convincing.

 

[Kfox]

The reason why there have been different messages is because humans and the world they live in changes from age to age, so the message from God needs to be different in every age. The purpose of a message from God is not just to say "I exist"; the message contains important information that God wants us to have.

We are now living is a new age and if everyone accepted the message that God sent for this age, the message of Baha'u'llah, then we would all be on the same page, but what happens is that people cling to the religions of the past that no longer apply to this age. That is not God's fault because we all have free will to choose.

Hypothetically speaking, if God spoke from the sky today, God would have to speak again in the next age because humanity is constantly evolving and the world is constantly changing, so the message of today can never be what will be needed in a subsequent age.

Hypothetically speaking if God did speak from the clouds, he wouldn't have to keep repeating himself because there would be a permanent record of the event via today's technology, and though many things do change, many things also remain the same. If God were truth, all truth seekers would continue to recognize the truth regardless of subsequent age.

 

[Kfox]

I just don't see it that way.
When people become angry, they are not making rational decisions. There is an underlying cause for their anger, which has little to do with religious creed.

It's not just when people get angry, there is a bit of bigotry involved when you think you are just and all others are wrong. This leads to an us vs them mentality that can lead to other problems. You would probably be surprised at how many theists get offended when I speak of morals; like how dare an atheist speak of right vs wrong! A recent survey said that in the US a large percentage of voters would never vote for an Atheist because they can't be trusted. When John Kennedy ran for office years ago, it was believed he wouldn't stand a chance because he was Catholic. These attitudes lead to problems and the problems become worse when they get angry.

Perhaps you'd like to give me a real life example.

Re. creeds being "my way or the hi-way", I would say this attitude is borne out of ignorance, and taking scriptural verses out of context.

If God is in each of us giving his message himself, how is this possible?

For example, Jesus is reported to have said "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me".
I take that as meaning that those that deny him are astray.

To deny him means to not accept him as the Son of God; right? But not everybody who speaks of Jesus believes that. How is this possible if we are all getting the same message from God himself?

 

[Trailblazer]

It is a mistake to assume that because I am not a theist I wouldn't care if God existed. It is also a mistake to assume that because I am not theist I haven't looked at the evidence. Believe it or not; I used to be theist and the reason I no longer am is because I did look at the evidence.

I did not assume that. Please note that I said "I guess if it does not matter to you if God actually exists or not, and this is all hypothetical, there is nothing more to discuss,"

I also never assumed that you have not looked at the evidence. I am not at all surprised that you were a theist since most atheists in the United States were formerly Christians.

I never said God speaking from the clouds was the only evidence I would accept. You asked a question; I gave you an answer. I never said I was dead set on anything, or that there weren't other things that I would find convincing, I just said I'm not gonna find some guy I don't know who hasn't earned any credibility from me convincing.

Please note that I said "if you are dead set that a God speaking from the sky is the only evidence you would ever accept" and I said that because I was not sure.

You should not consider some guy you don't know who hasn't earned any credibility from you convincing. Baha'u'llah even said that.

“Bahá’u’lláh asked no one to accept His statements and His tokens blindly. On the contrary, He put in the very forefront of His teachings emphatic warnings against blind acceptance of authority, and urged all to open their eyes and ears, and use their own judgement, independently and fearlessly, in order to ascertain the truth. He enjoined the fullest investigation and never concealed Himself, offering, as the supreme proofs of His Prophethood, His words and works and their effects in transforming the lives and characters of men.”
Bahá’u’lláh and the New Era, p. 8

 

[Trailblazer]

Hypothetically speaking if God did speak from the clouds, he wouldn't have to keep repeating himself because there would be a permanent record of the event via today's technology, and though many things do change, many things also remain the same. If God were truth, all truth seekers would continue to recognize the truth regardless of subsequent age.

That's true, there would be a permanent record that God exists if people had recognized God speaking from the clouds and believed it was God, but God's message would need to be updated in the future since people's needs and the world they live in changes over time. The message is not static, once and for all time, as Christians believe.

 

[rational experiences]

Humans all babies.

Humans know origin baby human parents origin deceased.

You know.

They came out of the eternal. At ground state where water mass is held under pressure from above.

Walked out of spirit.

A deceased human recorded memory in the heavens. Is not the eternal.

Ask why a conscious theist a human only believe the eternal was owned by his adult man self personally?

Because his man adult self father is human deceased.

Why you said father was a God. As he by history became the God.

Not as the creator in creation but humans historic father. Now resides recorded speaking from the heavens.

Did I believe?

A big no.

I did not believe in any indoctrinated belief. I however allowed humans who believed to tell me why they believed. I didn't just ignore them.

I learnt by a self experience

Science a human first theories

Two theories are owned by science. No such state as a spirit being. And the eternal is science the infinite. The same belief

Only science owns telling anyone what they believe.

Yet science was theoried for a machine out of earth dusts. Then took dusts again to use a machine to time shift the machine.

Is his virtual reality.

As earth is not any machine Mr Satan the he man that did it owns his own atmospheric man records too. I heard him.

Nothing like my father first life memory.

I heard father. I love father. I know he thinks of my innocent harmed life.

Satanic theisms is all lies. I've heard it. Been harmed by it.

My brother designed it. He built it. He tried to convert it by it. Machine status. He thinks constantly controlling the machine by bio thinking.

Now he says he uses the machine to control our minds as the human scientist designer. A computer studied AI psyche programs subliminal

Not heard in hearing but affects conscious choice

As his scientist self is biologically nearly destroyed.

It is a true human teaching. Men lied when claiming Satan was mans human brother. Satan was conjured by man the designer machine.

A machine does not talk.

Cause did.

Water taken into nuclear took life's support away to conjure a nuclear reaction.

 

[muhammad_isa]

So by that definition, would an atheist trying to lead other atheists away from God by calling God evil be satan?

I don't know.
G-d knows who is a devil and who is just ignorant.
Intention is something that can only be imagined and not known for sure.

 

[muhammad_isa]

It's not just when people get angry, there is a bit of bigotry involved when you think you are just and all others are wrong. This leads to an us vs them mentality that can lead to other problems..

I think you'll find that that is more about human nature. It is more to do with our tribal mentality, I would have thought.

You would probably be surprised at how many theists get offended when I speak of morals;

This is not about a particular creed. This is about the moral values of those that reject G-d.

If God is in each of us giving his message himself, how is this possible?

A person who turns away from G-d rejects any "message".

To deny him means to not accept him as the Son of God; right? But not everybody who speaks of Jesus believes that. How is this possible if we are all getting the same message from God himself?

We get "the message" we want to get. Our minds are complex.
We are able to choose whatever we like. G-d knows why we choose what we choose.

Maybe we are so busy with this life that we haven't even bothered to look for truth, and follow what we are familiar with.
Maybe we choose a creed because it suits us.
There are numerous reasons why we claim what we claim.
There is no coercion, and as in human law, ignorance is no excuse.

If we take one step towards G-d, then He comes running towards us.
It is all about the nature of our souls.
It is a wide-held belief that there is "good" in everybody.
We need to cultivate that good.

 

[Kfox]

You should not consider some guy you don't know who hasn't earned any credibility from you convincing. Baha'u'llah even said that.

“Bahá’u’lláh asked no one to accept His statements and His tokens blindly. On the contrary, He put in the very forefront of His teachings emphatic warnings against blind acceptance of authority, and urged all to open their eyes and ears, and use their own judgement, independently and fearlessly, in order to ascertain the truth. He enjoined the fullest investigation and never concealed Himself, offering, as the supreme proofs of His Prophethood, His words and works and their effects in transforming the lives and characters of men.”
Bahá’u’lláh and the New Era, p. 8

I can agree with that. But doesn't that kinda fly in the face of what you said earlier that the Prophets were the best way to spread God's message?

That's true, there would be a permanent record that God exists if people had recognized God speaking from the clouds and believed it was God, but God's message would need to be updated in the future since people's needs and the world they live in changes over time. The message is not static, once and for all time, as Christians believe.

I see nothing wrong with that. IMO constant communication would be the best way to go.

 

[Trailblazer]

I can agree with that. But doesn't that kinda fly in the face of what you said earlier that the Prophets were the best way to spread God's message?

I said I believe that Messengers/Prophets are how God communicates messages to humans.
Why do you think that quote goes against that?

 

[Kfox]

I said I believe that Messengers/Prophets are how God communicates messages to humans.
Why do you think that quote goes against that?

When I spoke of people who have no credibility with me, I was talking about those people calling themselves God's Prophets, and Messengers. Why would God give a Prophet or Messenger a message to give to me, when he could just talk to me himself?

 

[Tiberius]

That's true, but that does not mean that one of those conclusions is not correct and the others incorrect.

But it is far more likely that they are all wrong.

And even if one of them is right, how do you tell which one?

It might not be harder. It sure worked on the Israelites.

Once again, you flip flop from your earlier claim.

That is true and it is a valid point. The problem is that there is no BOOMING VOICE FROM HEAVEN so it is a moot point.

Funny that, isn't it? It's almost like God doesn't exist...

I mean, God did it all the time in the olden days!

 

[Trailblazer]

When I spoke of people who have no credibility with me, I was talking about those people calling themselves God's Prophets, and Messengers. Why would God give a Prophet or Messenger a message to give to me, when he could just talk to me himself?

Do you think that God should talk to all of the 7.8 billion people in the world? If not, why would God talk to only certain people and not others? Why should God talk to everyone directly when God can send a Messenger to address everyone in the world?

But I consider that a moot point because I do not believe that God could talk to you or any human in a way that they could understand because nobody except the Messengers can understand God. It is only because they have a divine mind that they can understand God.

 

[Trailblazer]

But it is far more likely that they are all wrong.

I do not go on likelihoods, I want to know what is actually true.

And even if one of them is right, how do you tell which one?

Independent investigation of the Messenger and His life and mission..

Once again, you flip flop from your earlier claim.

I flip flop when I see that I was wrong about something.

Funny that, isn't it? It's almost like God doesn't exist...

I mean, God did it all the time in the olden days!

All the time?

I guess the booming voice did not accomplish all that much since only the Jews heard it.
Even if God did it with the Israelites, how many Jews are in the world today after 3600 years?
There are only about twice as many Jews (14 million) as there are Baha'is (7 million) after about 150 years.

 

[Tiberius]

I do not go on likelihoods, I want to know what is actually true.

Unfortunately, absolute proof is reserved for mathematics and alcohol. With everything else, all we have is likelihood. You can't be absolutely sure you are sitting at your computer now, since you can't eliminate the possibility that you are a brain in a jar experiencing some kind of simulation. But such a situation is extremely unlikely. Which is why you don't live your life as though that were the case.

Independent investigation of the Messenger and His life and mission..

Except that doesn't work, since different people get different results.

I flip flop when I see that I was wrong about something.

Ah, so you have concluded that it would be EASIER to verify that a booming voice from the sky is the voice of God than it would be to verify that a person who claims to be a messenger of God is actually a messenger of God?

So I take it that you agree with @Kfox's claim in post 4446 that a voice from the clouds addressing the entire world in a language each of us can understand clearing up all the misinformation we have of him would be evidence of God's existence. Certainly better evidence of God than someone who claimed to speak for him.

All the time?

I guess the booming voice did not accomplish all that much since only the Jews heard it.

So? Are you suggesting that God used weak strategies?

Even if God did it with the Israelites, how many Jews are in the world today after 3600 years?
There are only about twice as many Jews (14 million) as there are Baha'is (7 million) after about 150 years.

What relevance does the number have?

Because the only reason why I can think of for you to bring up the numbers of followers each faith has is an argument from popularity. However, you've claimed multiple times that you don't resort to logical fallacies, and even if you were to accidently use one, this particular one is so obvious that you surely wouldn't use it.

But I can't think of any other point you could be making by bringing up the numbers. So, please tell me, what point exactly ARE you trying to make?

 

[Trailblazer]

Unfortunately, absolute proof is reserved for mathematics and alcohol. With everything else, all we have is likelihood. You can't be absolutely sure you are sitting at your computer now, since you can't eliminate the possibility that you are a brain in a jar experiencing some kind of simulation. But such a situation is extremely unlikely. Which is why you don't live your life as though that were the case.

I think it is possible to have absolute proof, if that proof was bestowed by God to certain individuals.

Except that doesn't work, since different people get different results.

I cannot see why that would matter. All that matters is what is the truth. The truth is the truth regardless of what people believe (what results they get).

Ah, so you have concluded that it would be EASIER to verify that a booming voice from the sky is the voice of God than it would be to verify that a person who claims to be a messenger of God is actually a messenger of God?

Neither one could be verified.
What I meant is that the booming voice might be more believable than the person who claims to be a Messenger of God.

So I take it that you agree with @Kfox's claim in post 4446 that a voice from the clouds addressing the entire world in a language each of us can understand clearing up all the misinformation we have of him would be evidence of God's existence. Certainly better evidence of God than someone who claimed to speak for him.

It would not be evidence of God's existence unless it was actually God's voice. How could we verify that? You just said that absolute proof is reserved for mathematics and alcohol. With everything else, all we have is likelihood. How likely would it be that it was God speaking from the sky, given that God has never spoken from the sky, except in Bible stories that can never be verified?

So? Are you suggesting that God used weak strategies?

I am suggesting that the booming voice is not God's strategy at all, since there is no proof that God ever spoke to the Israelites on Mt. Sinai.

However, IF God spoke to the Israelites it was only a here-and-now event employed for a specific purpose God was trying to accomplish at that time in history. It was NOT a method of communication God ever planned to employ again.

I am also saying that even if God spoke with a booming voice as the Bible alleged, the booming voice did not accomplish all that much since only the Jews heard it and there are very few Jews in the world. In other words, the booming voice did not help all the other people in the world to believe in God and even many Jews lost faith in God after the Holocaust.... so much for the booming voice.

What relevance does the number have?

The relevance is that the booming Voice of God, if there ever was one, did not help anyone except the Jews who heard it and those Jews who believe it now owing to their scriptures.

Because the only reason why I can think of for you to bring up the numbers of followers each faith has is an argument from popularity.

However, you've claimed multiple times that you don't resort to logical fallacies, and even if you were to accidentally use one, this particular one is so obvious that you surely wouldn't use it.

But I can't think of any other point you could be making by bringing up the numbers. So, please tell me, what point exactly ARE you trying to make?

It has absolutely nothing to do with ad populum because I am not saying that just because many people do not believe what Jews believe it cannot be true.

The point I am trying to make is that the booming voice of God, if there ever was one, did not help anyone to believe in God except the Jews who heard it, and only a few Jews heard the voice relative to the population of the world. So how does that help you or any other atheist to believe in God?

 

[samtonga43]

What is objectively true is true.

Two questions:

1. Can you give an example of an objective truth?
2. Can a subjective truth be proved to be true?

 

[Trailblazer]

Two questions:

1. Can you give an example of an objective truth?
2. Can a subjective truth be proved to be true?

1. Can you give an example of an objective truth?
The world is a sphere.

What is objective truth? | GotQuestions.org
https://www.gotquestions.org › objective-truth
If something is objective, it has correspondence with reality. Objective truth is something that is true for everyone, whether they agree with it or not.

2. Can a subjective truth be proved to be true?
No.

Is all truth subjective? A subjective truth is a truth based off of a person's perspective, feelings, or opinions. Everything we know is based off of our input - our senses, our perception. Thus, everything we know is subjective. All truths are subjective. Do you think all truths are subjective? If not, what is wrong with the above argument?

Subjective Truth - Questions | AskPhilosophers.org

 

[CG Didymus]

If God is in each of us giving his message himself, how is this possible?

Although, at different times, I believed three very different things about God... In all of them, part of the belief was that God was inside and communicating with me.

So, is it just the sub-conscious mind, considering that I was believing in something different each time, or was that really a spiritual being talking to me and guiding me? Because deep inside I knew that this God wanted some things to be done other things not done. So, I think it could have been my sub-conscious mind being that little voice inside telling me what was right and what was wrong.

But then there are interactions with people in the other religions. If my mind is locked in on believing certain things about God and what he wants, and a person, like a Baha'i, comes along and contradicts those beliefs, my mind is going to fight against those things... Even if it sounds reasonable... But there's always something that isn't.

It works the other way too. If a Christians tells a Baha'i that Jesus rose from the dead, or that the flood story and creation are real, the things they've implanted into their brain and called "Truth", isn't going to believe it. But both Baha'is and Christians have "God" stuck in their heads and filed away under the heading, "Absolute Truth". To them, it sure seems like, somehow, that is objectively true. And especially for some of them, they do hear and feel God working in them and guiding them. But, just between Christians and Baha'is, that's two very different concepts of God. And they are both guiding people? Or it's all in their heads?

 

[CG Didymus]

That's true, there would be a permanent record that God exists if people had recognized God speaking from the clouds and believed it was God, but God's message would need to be updated in the future since people's needs and the world they live in changes over time. The message is not static, once and for all time, as Christians believe.

A "permanent" record that God spoke? Isn't the what the Bible is supposed to be? Along with speaking from heaven, it tells us how he created everything. It tells us how he flooded the world and all the rest. And some people look at that record and say, "No way, that's nuts."

So, what it says is nuts for some of us, so of course it would have to be updated. But are the new messages any better? Go back and let's see the changes in the "social" laws of God. First problem, what Scriptures from the older religions are you going to use? You don't trust any of them. So, all we've got is the Quran and the Baha'i writings. Did the Quran fit the needs of all people? I would guess no. So, what other God given spiritual and social laws and which teachings about God would the rest of the people use? Something that Baha'is say has been changed and does not have the original teachings from God.

That leaves us with the record of the Baha'i Faith. That's our "permanent" record of who God is, what he wants and tells us all about his laws. And that voice from heaven is Baha'u'llah. But that voice is pretty hard for some of us to hear. There's too much distortion or something.